Then I put a question-mark, because I wasn't sure if that was the answer you were going for. I see now that it is. Very well. Resolved: Tony Blair said sometime, somewhere, some statement like "Saddam Hussein could attack us within 45 minutes" to his British subjects. Still don't know what yer point is.
Now I don't know what I'm talking about, so you can't respond?
No, I couldn't respond because you don't know who you're talking about. If I say "George Bush said he wants to kill some puppies", that's a serious charge and you and I can discuss what that means about George Bush and whether we should vote for him etc. But if I say (like you said) "I couldn't remember who said it, but whoever said it was definitely saying they wanna kill puppies", then just what the hell is my point and what does that have to do with George Bush or Tony Blair or anyone else? So how are you supposed to respond if I don't even specify who I'm talking about?
Now turn that around and apply that to the beginning of your comment #12. Understand now? You made a charge (that they said "there's an imminent threat") against no one in particular. You don't know and couldn't say who you were making the charge against. But whether that charge is true or not depends, just a little, on who the heck you're talking about. So unless/until you specify that piece of the puzzle, I couldn't respond - that's what I meant. Capisce?
Okaayyy. If you had actually read my post, I asked who made the statement, you said Tony Blair. Where did I even mention Bush?
Nowhere. Like I said in my previous post, I was only addressing the hypothetical if you had Bush in mind. Then I said that I hoped you didn't. I'm glad to see that my fears proved unwarranted. That settles that then.
I merely asked a question about who made a certain statement. I never mentioned George Bush or anything he said.
I offered a possible answer (which I wasn't sure was correct) and then asked you what your point was. Still waiting to hear.
My original point, which has been made clearly, was the an attack within 45 minutes is imminent, which you agreed with. I never said anyone said Saddam Hussein was going to attack us in 45 minutes, as you say I did.
Ok then. Resolved: we both agree that an attack which is coming within 45 minutes represents an imminent threat, and that nobody ever said that such a thing was the case in the first place. But then what's your point? Why bring it up at all? Shall we now discuss whether an attack coming in 49 minutes is an imminent threat even though nobody said that either?
What's your point?
Probably that you have no point, I guess.
I mean beyond the obvious, that you're a nasty, lonely person with too much time on his hands?
Obviously. Good thing you've made time in your busy schedule to set me straight. Thanks,